The article mentions nothing about a textbook. The quote in question comes from the letter they sent home showing an example of their "person first" language curriculum for a sex ed unit. So its still the same problem, especially if you make the easy assumption that they will call the students that during said unit.
A curriculum usually comes from a textbook, so that's purely semantics.
What I meant was that it's not that they're getting rid of the boy and girl descriptors outside of this course. It's yet another overblown example of the fictitious "war on women".
A curriculum usually comes from a textbook, so that's purely semantics.
How do you say such retarded things with a straight face. A curriculum is the entire comprehensive structure of a teaching unit. The textbook is a single part of any of that, and usually one of many. My sex ed curriculum back in the day had zero textbooks and was entirely printoffs.
And like I said above, I don't give two shits about the female half of this equation but "person who produces sperm" is outright directly sexualizing young boys, in a way none of them are for girls.
If you think teachers do anything more than churn out lessons based off textbooks, you're retarded. ChatGPT could do what they do. Maybe in the future it actually will and they'll all end up homeless. That's a fun thought.
Nobody's going to care about boys being sexualized. That's the shitty society we live in, where the right only cares if it affects women, the left only cares if it affects women and men are demonized, dehumanized and shut out of work by the very women they're being told they have to care about.
Did anyone read the article? It's in a textbook about sex, not what they're calling the students.
The article mentions nothing about a textbook. The quote in question comes from the letter they sent home showing an example of their "person first" language curriculum for a sex ed unit. So its still the same problem, especially if you make the easy assumption that they will call the students that during said unit.
A curriculum usually comes from a textbook, so that's purely semantics.
What I meant was that it's not that they're getting rid of the boy and girl descriptors outside of this course. It's yet another overblown example of the fictitious "war on women".
How do you say such retarded things with a straight face. A curriculum is the entire comprehensive structure of a teaching unit. The textbook is a single part of any of that, and usually one of many. My sex ed curriculum back in the day had zero textbooks and was entirely printoffs.
And like I said above, I don't give two shits about the female half of this equation but "person who produces sperm" is outright directly sexualizing young boys, in a way none of them are for girls.
If you think teachers do anything more than churn out lessons based off textbooks, you're retarded. ChatGPT could do what they do. Maybe in the future it actually will and they'll all end up homeless. That's a fun thought.
Nobody's going to care about boys being sexualized. That's the shitty society we live in, where the right only cares if it affects women, the left only cares if it affects women and men are demonized, dehumanized and shut out of work by the very women they're being told they have to care about.